Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30154073›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

mHealth Tools for the Self-Management of Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Pilot Study to Explore User Experience.

Anum Irfan Khan, Ashlinder Gill, Cheryl Cott, Parminder Kaur Hans, Carolyn Steele Gray

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anum Irfan KhanInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-7119
Ashlinder GillInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6775-1181
Cheryl CottDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9986-3863
Parminder Kaur HansBridgepoint Campus, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8641-0582
Carolyn Steele GrayInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2146-0001
University of Toronto · CALunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the complex and evolving needs of individuals with multimorbidity, the adoption of mHealth tools to support self-management efforts is increasingly being explored, particularly in primary care settings. The electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) tool was codeveloped with patients and providers in an interdisciplinary primary care team in Toronto, Canada, to help facilitate self-management in community-dwelling adults with multiple chronic conditions.

objectiveThe objective of study is to explore the experience and expectations of patients with multimorbidity and their providers around the use of the ePRO tool in supporting self-management efforts.

methodsWe conducted a 4-week pilot study of the ePRO tool. Patients' and providers' experiences and expectations were explored through focus groups that were conducted at the end of the study. In addition, thematic analyses were used to assess the shared and contrasting perspectives of patients and providers on the role of the ePRO tool in facilitating self-management. Coded data were then mapped onto the Individual and Family Self-Management Theory using the framework method.

resultsIn this pilot study, 12 patients and 6 providers participated. Both patients and providers emphasized the need for a more explicit recognition of self-management context, including greater customizability of content to better adapt to the complexity and fluidity of self-management in this particular patient population. Patients and providers highlighted gaps in the extent to which the tool enables self-management processes, including how limited progress toward self-management goals and the absence of direct provider engagement through the ePRO tool inhibited patients from meeting their self-management goals. Providers highlighted proximal outcomes based on their experience of the tool and specifically, they indicated that the tool offered valuable insights into the broader patient context, which helps to inform the self-management approach and activities they recommend to patients, whereas patients recognized the tool's potential in helping to improve access to different providers in a team-based primary care setting.

conclusionsThis study identifies a more explicit recognition of the contextual factors that influence patients' ability to self-manage and greater adaptability to accommodate patient complexity and provider workflow as next steps in refining the ePRO tool to better support self-management efforts in primary care ahead of its application in a full-scale randomized pragmatic trial.

Indexed as

mHealthmultimorbidityprimary careself-management

Identifiers

PMID30154073
PMCPMC6134226
OpenAlexW2809646853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.